What's the matter with the processors on the 13" rMBP?

[cheesyappleuser]

Hi everyone,
I'm thinking about getting myself a brand new rMBP, and, first of all, I'm thinking about a this year's model; I don't really like to buy the older ones because they're, well, older (even if those are a better bang for the buck).

The thing is, I feel tempted to get the 8/256/2.4 13", but I can't help myself when I look at the benchmarks, because the 15" baseline is so much more powerful for more $500.
Not that money is an issue (if it were I'd go for last years'). The thing is, the processor performance difference is enormous!, and, even though I'm a fairly light user, I'm afraid the computer isn't bullet-proof enough and will not run smooth enough (I know this is Apple, but still...). And I really don't want to let go the improved battery life / smaller size and weight.

So, what do you think?

 

[Shubbeh]

Of course you're going to get a large performance difference when comparing dual-core and quad-core CPUs of the same generation. The 13" rMBP uses the former while the 15" rMBP uses the latter.
That being said, dual-core CPUs have been around since the mid-2000s and to this day they are still more than adequate for most people. The question is what you do with your computer that may require or at least benefit from stronger hardware that justifies the difference in price.

 

[isephmusic]

i have a quadcore i7 15' from 2012 the classic one non retina and its slow as bricks for some reason. i think its all due to the ssd. its just so slow to START anything. once it gets going its fast as ****. its just getting there that made me sell it to buy a retina model with ssd.

get the 13in ull be happy with hasell processors maybe upgrade to 2.6 instead of 2.4 thats all u need for a couple years

 

[Fallingreason]

my late 2013 MBPr lagged in the UI more than my 2012 Air. Returned it and got a 2013 Air. Retina display is overrated, especially if you have an iPad for reading.

 

[radiohead14]

dual core vs quad core

 

[Steve121178]

So, what do you think?

Do you need 13" or 15"? That's the most important question you need to ask yourself.

 

[richard371]

I have the mid model late 2013 rMBP and love the retina screen. I don't really notice enough/any lag to justify the non retina screen in the air. I find the Retina screen is much easier on the eyes and just looks amazing compared to the non Retina screen.

I have a feeling Apple will release mavricks updates etc that will tune things up a bit for people having lag. We are only at 10.9.0.

 

[Atomic Walrus]

Keep in mind that "normal" daily usage is mostly about single core performance; You will not see gains from adding more cores in that situation. You wouldn't want to drop to a single core, but 4 cores is generally overkill for casual usage. Even for gaming, actually, where the real-time nature of the simulation limits multi-threading.

When those extra cores come into play is when a CPU-bound application (say, rendering something) is coded to properly take advantage of multiple CPUs. In that case, access to two additional cores will provide about twice the processing power and it'll complete twice as quickly.

The other possible case is running multiple single-threaded applications side by side. If you run 3 or more single-threaded applications that are all CPU-bound, the quad core CPU will perform better.

A crazy example of the 2nd case: A dual core CPU could run 2 instances of Dwarf Fortress (a CPU-bound single-threaded indie game) simultaneously while a quad core could run 4 instances at roughly the same speed. If the dual core system tried to run 4 instances each would run at roughly half the speed because each instance must share a core with another. If both systems ran a single copy of the game they would perform about equally (+variation from different boost clocks).

The "normal" daily laptop usage does not involve either of those situations. Many casual users will rarely run an application that is CPU-bound, let alone one that can take advantage of 4 cores. From your very limited description of your usage I doubt you'd ever see any significant difference (though the quad core chips in the 15" are actually slightly faster in single-core as well, it's a very small difference).

 

[cheesyappleuser]

get the 13in ull be happy with hasell processors maybe upgrade to 2.6 instead of 2.4 thats all u need for a couple years

You don't just buy a $1500 machine for it to last a couple of years, for God's sake!! Planning to make it last at least 6 years over here, so it's a really tough choice.

Keep in mind that "normal" daily usage is mostly about single core performance; You will not see gains from adding more cores in that situation. You wouldn't want to drop to a single core, but 4 cores is generally overkill for casual usage. Even for gaming, actually, where the real-time nature of the simulation limits multi-threading.

When those extra cores come into play is when a CPU-bound application (say, rendering something) is coded to properly take advantage of multiple CPUs. In that case, access to two additional cores will provide about twice the processing power and it'll complete twice as quickly.

The other possible case is running multiple single-threaded applications side by side. If you run 3 or more single-threaded applications that are all CPU-bound, the quad core CPU will perform better.

A crazy example of the 2nd case: A dual core CPU could run 2 instances of Dwarf Fortress (a CPU-bound single-threaded indie game) simultaneously while a quad core could run 4 instances at roughly the same speed. If the dual core system tried to run 4 instances each would run at roughly half the speed because each instance must share a core with another. If both systems ran a single copy of the game they would perform about equally (+variation from different boost clocks).

The "normal" daily laptop usage does not involve either of those situations. Many casual users will rarely run an application that is CPU-bound, let alone one that can take advantage of 4 cores. From your very limited description of your usage I doubt you'd ever see any significant difference (though the quad core chips in the 15" are actually slightly faster in single-core as well, it's a very small difference).

TBH I don't know, because for what I do every day even an iPad would do. The problem is I'm running programs in college soon enough (engineerings guy over here) and I'm not sure if a 13" can handle it (being it dual-core). Plus my 5 yr-old setup CPU is only 25% slower than the latest gen 13" (counting off better RAM and SSD though ).

As for the question, 13 or 15, I can't really answer it. I guess I just want something smaller, no huge portability gains for me; I really want to get the odds of having my lappy robbed at a minimum.

 

[fenjen]

i have a quadcore i7 15' from 2012 the classic one non retina and its slow as bricks for some reason. i think its all due to the ssd. its just so slow to START anything. once it gets going its fast as ****. its just getting there that made me sell it to buy a retina model with ssd.

get the 13in ull be happy with hasell processors maybe upgrade to 2.6 instead of 2.4 thats all u need for a couple years

You do realize you could've just swapped the HDD for an SSD, right?

 

[mrweirdo]

Sort of in the same conflict myself however 15" is just outside my budget range atm otherwise would love to go quad even if I might not need it now.

I have a feeling future 13" mbp retina revision might have quads since I'm preparing to buy one of the current ones. With my luck apple will decide that quads are required for future os versions

Fyi I see that happening with Retina as well.

 

[cheesyappleuser]

Sort of in the same conflict myself however 15" is just outside my budget range atm otherwise would love to go quad even if I might not need it now.

I have a feeling future 13" mbp retina revision might have quads since I'm preparing to buy one of the current ones. With my luck apple will decide that quads are required for future os versions

Fyi I see that happening with Retina as well.

That is my hope as well: a $1700 quad-core setup in the next iteration. I'm still very undecided about it.

BTW the older gen 15" rMBP is $1750 on BHPhotovideo.com. No taxes

 

[Lucky:)]

Hey guys,

same here. I move the whole time between the base 15 inch and the mid 13 inch macbook pro (both Late 2013). In my case it's 425 EUR (570 USD) between them. Is it worth it to spend 425€ more for just two Blizzard games (Starcraft 2, Diablo 3)?!

Cheers,

Lucky

 

[phsphoenix]

Hey guys,

same here. I move the whole time between the base 15 inch and the mid 13 inch macbook pro (both Late 2013). In my case it's 425 EUR (570 USD) between them. Is it worth it to spend 425€ more for just two Blizzard games (Starcraft 2, Diablo 3)?!

Cheers,

Lucky

In the case of Starcraft II I can tell you that you'll only be able to run the game at 1680x1050 at medium settings. Any higher and Battle.net will complain that you are slowing down the game.

15" rmbp 2.3/16/512 750m.

 

[cheesyappleuser]

Hey guys,

same here. I move the whole time between the base 15 inch and the mid 13 inch macbook pro (both Late 2013). In my case it's 425 EUR (570 USD) between them. Is it worth it to spend 425€ more for just two Blizzard games (Starcraft 2, Diablo 3)?!

Cheers,

Lucky

In that case you might want to wait for next year.

 

[leman]

You don't just buy a $1500 machine for it to last a couple of years, for God's sake!!

Why not? If you keep it for 3 years, its only $40/month. That is not a lot of money at all, for a good computer. And you will still be able to sell it for at least $700 (possibly more) after that.

TBH I don't know, because for what I do every day even an iPad would do. The Plus my 5 yr-old setup CPU is only 25% slower than the latest gen 13"

You must be confusing something. The fastest 17" MBP from 2009 (Intel T9900) is 40% slower in single-core performance and almost 50% slower in multi-core performance when compared to the base 2013 MacBook Air. Of course, it depends on how you compute your percentage. I computed it as how much faster must the slower CPU be to reach the performance levels of the faster one (this is equivalent to how much more work can the faster CPU do in the same time).

 

[cheesyappleuser]

Why not? If you keep it for 3 years, its only $40/month. That is not a lot of money at all, for a good computer. And you will still be able to sell it for at least $700 (possibly more) after that.

Not really. I like keeping things for some time, so I want to make sure I make it last.
Plus I don't live in the US (even though I will get it from there). Which means I could sell it for $1000 at least.

You must be confusing something. The fastest 17" MBP from 2009 (Intel T9900) is 40% slower in single-core performance and almost 50% slower in multi-core performance when compared to the base 2013 MacBook Air. Of course, it depends on how you compute your percentage. I computed it as how much faster must the slower CPU be to reach the performance levels of the faster one (this is equivalent to how much more work can the faster CPU do in the same time).

I own a custom-built PC yet. I've been checking the bechmarks and it is 29% slower than the baseline rMBP which I pretend to buy.

 

[leman]

I own a custom-built PC yet. I've been checking the bechmarks and it is 29% slower than the baseline rMBP which I pretend to buy.

I see. Well, laptops are usually slower than desktops

 

[cheesyappleuser]

I see. Well, laptops are usually slower than desktops

Yeah
I just hope the 13" ages well; still thinking, but more willing to go for the smaller size and weight

 

[isephmusic]

damn i coudlnty own a laptop for 6 years. the value depreciates way too fast. i upgrade every 2 because apps get updated that require more power. photoshop 1 was easy to run on everything back in the early 2000's but those laptops woulndt be able to run photoshop 6 with cloud elements. so i upgrade the hardware and sell previous on ebay or craiglist for a very small upgrade fee. usually like $250 and u will always have the best and newest. i dont care that i could of put an ssd in my old clasic mabook, it still would of been heavy, using intels last gen processor so no battery life gains from haswell, and ssd is not as fast as PCI-e storage so theres that too. its all just options max something out now and let it last 6 year or buy the entry model and ... oh wait u cant upgrade them anymore.

makes no sense to try to keep it 6 years. get what u need now, upgrade when the right features for you are released

 

[mthos]

Hi everyone,
I'm thinking about getting myself a brand new rMBP, and, first of all, I'm thinking about a this year's model; I don't really like to buy the older ones because they're, well, older (even if those are a better bang for the buck).

The thing is, I feel tempted to get the 8/256/2.4 13", but I can't help myself when I look at the benchmarks, because the 15" baseline is so much more powerful for more $500.
Not that money is an issue (if it were I'd go for last years'). The thing is, the processor performance difference is enormous!, and, even though I'm a fairly light user, I'm afraid the computer isn't bullet-proof enough and will not run smooth enough (I know this is Apple, but still...). And I really don't want to let go the improved battery life / smaller size and weight.

So, what do you think?

Do you use programs or do multi-tasking that will benefit from multiple cores? If not dual-core i5 is faster in day to day use with higher core clock. If you do a lot of multi-tasking and use programs that can actually use multiple cores and threads then i7 will blow away the i5.

Light users wont notice a difference between i5 and i7 in day to day.
Heavy/PRO users will notice a large difference in video rendering, compile times or games that take advantage of all 4 cores.

 

[cheesyappleuser]

What's the matter with the processors on the 13" rMBP?

makes no sense to try to keep it 6 years. get what u need now, upgrade when the right features for you are released

You really understood me! A computer that doesn't need an upgrade for 6 years is exactly what I'm looking for

----------

Do you use programs or do multi-tasking that will benefit from multiple cores? If not dual-core i5 is faster in day to day use with higher core clock. If you do a lot of multi-tasking and use programs that can actually use multiple cores and threads then i7 will blow away the i5.

Light users wont notice a difference between i5 and i7 in day to day.
Heavy/PRO users will notice a large difference in video rendering, compile times or games that take advantage of all 4 cores.

Don't consider myself neither a heavy or pro user at all.
Just do regular things: web with multiple tabs, 3 music players opened, word processing and such. That is, until I have to load the computer with college stuff, and I don't know what I'll run yet.

 

[Macshroomer]

You really understood me! A computer that doesn't need an upgrade for 6 years is exactly what I'm looking for

----------



Don't consider myself neither a heavy or pro user at all.
Just do regular things: web with multiple tabs, 3 music players opened, word processing and such. That is, until I have to load the computer with college stuff, and I don't know what I'll run yet.

Then why on earth do you look at benchmarks, they don't really apply to you. I'm sure my new 13" will last me at least 4 years, and I *am* a heavy pro, need it for my job type of user.

 

[PDFierro]

All of this is nonsense. The 13" is plenty powerful for most users, even years down the line. There is nothing wrong with the processors on the 13".